The backers of the controversial "Ground Zero Mosque" have won a court fight clearing the way for them to build the mosque and community center complex two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terror attack.In a decision on Friday that was made public today, New York State Supreme Justice Paul Feinman dismissed a lawsuit by former firefighter Timothy Brown who argued that New York City was wrong to allow the destruction of a 150-year-old building to make way for the Islamic center.The ex-firefighter who was among those who responded to the terror attack on the World Trade Center said the old building had been struck by debris during the collapse of the twin towers and was a "living representative of the heroic structures that commemorate the events of that day."In a 15-page decision Feinman wrote, "Mr. Brown's claim that his ability to commemorate will be injured, is not yet recognized under the law as a concrete injury that can establish standing. Such an injury, although palpable to Brown, is immeasurable by a court."The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal group which filed the lawsuit on Brown's behalf, said they plan to appeal the ruling.Ground Zero Mosque Clears Legal Hurdle to Build"This decision fails to give appropriate consideration to first responders and others who risked their lives and lost loved ones on Sept. 11," ACLJ attorney Brett Joshpe said in a statement.The ACLJ "remain confident that this mosque will never rise above Ground Zero."Organizers of the project, officially called Park 51, declined to comment.Brown and the ACLJ were appealing a ruling last summer by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission which decided to allow a 150-year-old Park Place building to be razed to make way for the center.Park 51 has been a source of national controversy since its unveiling last May. Opponents as well as supporters demonstrated at Ground Zero in reaction to the commission's decision to allow the mosque last August. President Obama was drawn into the controversy when he initially endorsed the mosque.

Last edited by Gehringer_2; 02-11-2012 at 07:56 PM.

"Well that's it - you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear" - Rock Man
2015 AAT: Javier Betancourt

Something went wrong. Please make sure you added the video correctly. Click here to see how YouTube videos should be embedded. There could also be a technical issue that's not your fault. Click here to view the video on YouTube's site. If this link doesn't work, you did something wrong.

I knew this was the basic strategy but I was pleased that Rachel Maddow gave it significant time on her show. Now, where I and other Paul people differ is on what happens after the convention. I want and think he'll run independent/-third party and keep the momentum going, possibly getting himself more than just a convention speech, possibly a debate slot for himself and his VP candidate.

Who knew after all these years Joe Dumars was really playing a dual role as both himself and his alter-ego Ken Holland.

I knew this was the basic strategy but I was pleased that Rachel Maddow gave it significant time on her show. Now, where I and other Paul people differ is on what happens after the convention. I want and think he'll run independent/-third party and keep the momentum going, possibly getting himself more than just a convention speech, possibly a debate slot for himself and his VP candidate.

A Ron Paul spokesman on Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly supports Ellen DeGeneres -- Good Lord, the Mayans were right about 2012, the apocalypse must be upon us!

"Well that's it - you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear" - Rock Man
2015 AAT: Javier Betancourt

Party leaders announced the results Saturday. The caucuses began February 4 and continued through the week. Some Maine communities have yet to hold their caucuses, though party leaders say they don't plan to count those votes.

One of the chief sources of internecine scrapping and grumbling among Republicans has come from the ranks of the social conservatives, or Socons as they are frequently known. We have already spent time speculating what would happen if Mitt Romney becomes the nominee. If he loses to Obama in November, the Socons will once again say that it was because cowardly, establishment party leaders failed to push forward a sufficiently conservative warrior who would fire up the base as a champion of socially conservative principles. If he wins, the Socons could quietly grumble that he’d simply gotten lucky against a deeply flawed president running on a failed record and bide their time until the next open seat in the Oval Office came up for grabs.Similarly, if Newt Gingrich were to lose to Obama, the blame could be heaped on his own shortcomings and extensive, frequently controversial biography. After all, his three marriages and “complicated” history didn’t exactly make him a darling among evangelical Christians. The same excuses could be applied with slight modifications.But Rick Santorum is a horse of an entirely different color who could serve as the ultimate test of this theory and put the question to rest once and for all. Is the secret to electoral success truly found in a take-no-prisoners, hard-core, rock-ribbed conservative? Is this truly what America is pining for?

Here’s where we roll into the arena of prognostication, so each of you can make your own call, but the outcome looks fairly clear from where I’m perched. If you were worried that Team Obama could turn a Gingrich nomination into a referendum on the speaker’s history, Santorum would make that look like child’s play. Gone would be discussions of the president’s paltry record on job growth or the disastrous downstream effects of his environmental regulatory policy. The DNC would dump hundreds of millions of dollars into running 24/7 advertisements in the fall featuring grainy, black and white clips of Rick Santorum reading off the quotes I cited above and many, many more. Tens of millions of moderate and independent voters who are currently looking with dismay at Obama’s record and are kicking the tires of a possible Republican alternative would thunder for the exits. In short, I believe a campaign such as that would lead to Barack Obama winning in a landslide.But perhaps that’s just me and I’m reading the temperature of the American public entirely wrong. Socons have been complaining for ages about the propensity of the establishment GOP to back social conservative geckos when they seek a Komodo dragon. With Rick Santorum we could, at last, put forward the social conservative Godzilla, destroyer of worlds. And when the dust settles in November we would finally have the answer to the question once and for all. But it might be a very expensive experiment to run.

“There are only two means of refuge from the miseries of life:
Music and Cats!” Albert Schweitzer

I'll have to. Its an interesting story. My dad still rues that the party got away from Romney/Milliken-ism. I was always a national security conservative but couldn't stand McCain as a phoney and turned to Romney during the last cycle as the alternative and was ticked when the Huckabee wing and the rest of the Red Staters ganged up on him. My ideal candidate is close to what Romney is...I'm ready to be done with the culture wars until we have the debt sorted and AQ under our heel. The latter has been nearly accomplished after 10 years...the former will take a lot of careful work.

"This law was passed in large part to prevent public opinion from denying zoning approval to religious uses. Now Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) tell CNN's "State of the Union" that the zoning approval should be denied because public opinion is against it. Republican strategist Ed Rollins tells "Face the Nation" that this proposal will be an issue Republicans will hang around the necks of Democrats in the fall.

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, zoning laws. I'm sure have encountered them. Zoning laws tell churches where they can and can't go all the time. There's a group out there called the Alliance Defense Fund. The last few years they've been running all over the country suing cities and counties and states over churches being turned down by zoning boards, and they have not yet won a case, I don't think. So zoning laws already dictate where you -- the First Amendment's got nothing whatsoever to do with building a church wherever you want to put one.

NEW YORK — The debate over a planned Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero became a court fight Wednesday, as a conservative advocacy group sued to try to stop a project that has become a fulcrum for balancing religious freedom and the legacy of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, filed suit Wednesday to challenge a city panel’s decision to let developers tear down a building to make way for the mosque two blocks from ground zero.

The city Landmarks Preservation Commission moved too fast in making a decision, underappreciated the building’s historic value and “allowed the intended use of the building and political considerations to taint the deliberative process,” lawyer Brett Joshpe wrote in papers filed in a Manhattan state court. The Washington, D.C.-based group represents a firefighter who responded to and survived the terrorist attack at the World Trade Cente

"The revelation that a public utility owns part of the site raises a whole host of new legal questions and requires the involvement of a new public agency and possibly additional public hearings. That, coupled with the Landmarks Commission's procedural violations and deviations from administrative precedent, only strengthens our legal challenge," said attorney Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice.

I could find many more examples, but alas, I'm not much into abuse of deceased equine.

The right's convenient rewriting of history here is nothing short of an epic fail. But of course, if they don't do so, then its obvs hypocrisy and/or bigotry. I'll let them decide where they want to go. Personally, I'd go hypocrite.

Okay sure, I guess there were some people who tried to do that. I don't remember hearing of them. But anyways, I disagree with that approach, just as I disagree that most conservatives wanted to block the mosque using governmental resources, as chas implied.

I'll have to. Its an interesting story. My dad still rues that the party got away from Romney/Milliken-ism. I was always a national security conservative but couldn't stand McCain as a phoney and turned to Romney during the last cycle as the alternative and was ticked when the Huckabee wing and the rest of the Red Staters ganged up on him. My ideal candidate is close to what Romney is...I'm ready to be done with the culture wars until we have the debt sorted and AQ under our heel. The latter has been nearly accomplished after 10 years...the former will take a lot of careful work.

Why wouldn't you just vote for Obama then? I mean, political theatrics aside, he's been as hawkish as Romney would have been -- increasing troops to Afghanistan, authorizing drone attacks within Pakistan, helping behind the scenes in Libya, etc. He hasn't raised taxes, his healthcare plan mirrors Romney's, etc. Even on social issues, he's against gay marriage. Obama's basically like a pro-choice Romney.

I mean, maybe Romney offers beter hope of privatizing Social Security and dismantling environmental protections, but even then, I think he's too much of a pragmatist and moderate to irk independent voters who favor both of the above.

If Romney were running as an independent, I'd have little problem with him becoming President. I don't think he's really an ideologue. But the reality is, he has to pretend to be if he is to ever win a Republican primary, and if elected, will be required to throw bones to the ideologues of the party. If he didn't owe anything to the party, though, and I didn't simply like Obama's demeanor and personality, I'd almost vote for him.

Why wouldn't you just vote for Obama then? I mean, political theatrics aside, he's been as hawkish as Romney would have been -- increasing troops to Afghanistan, authorizing drone attacks within Pakistan, helping behind the scenes in Libya, etc. He hasn't raised taxes, his healthcare plan mirrors Romney's, etc. Even on social issues, he's against gay marriage. Obama's basically like a pro-choice Romney.

I mean, maybe Romney offers beter hope of privatizing Social Security and dismantling environmental protections, but even then, I think he's too much of a pragmatist and moderate to irk independent voters who favor both of the above.

If Romney were running as an independent, I'd have little problem with him becoming President. I don't think he's really an ideologue. But the reality is, he has to pretend to be if he is to ever win a Republican primary, and if elected, will be required to throw bones to the ideologues of the party. If he didn't owe anything to the party, though, and I didn't simply like Obama's demeanor and personality, I'd almost vote for him.

Because he's Jimmy Carter's less effective, more feckless illegitimate son

The 2012 Maine Republican caucuses are being held from January to March, 2012, at various locations throughout the state of Maine. The Maine Republican Party is encouraging all municipal committees to hold their caucuses between February 4th to the 11th, though each committee is free to choose a different date.[1] The first caucus was in Waldo county on January 29th[2] and the last one in Hancock on March 3rd.[3] The party will conduct a non-binding Presidential straw poll at the caucuses. The results of the straw poll were made public on Saturday February 11, 2012. Note that some caucuses are held after February 11.[1][4] The straw poll has nothing to do with delegate allocation, which is done later.

Because he's Jimmy Carter's less effective, more feckless illegitimate son

I said political theatrics aside...

I always wonder why the right's disdain for Obama is always based on things that didn't happen, or "might" happen but haven't yet. It's never based on reality. Obama hasn't even said anything about taking away guns, he's not a foreigner, nor is he a Muslim, if he's a socialist, than he's a curious one for extending the Bush tax cuts, his healthcare plan is based on the Republican plan of the 1990s, he's continued Bush's hawkish foreign policy, killed bin Laden, etc.

The left hated Bush for things he actually did: bog us down in two unprovoked wars that killed over 100,000 innocent civillians and overrun cost estimates tenfold, deregulating Wall Street which led to the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression, violating the Constitution regarding indefinite detentions, torturing people, antagonizing our allies, restricting stem cell research, etc.

There isn't a political divide in this country...there's a reality divide. Some people live in it, and others are off in their own dream land. I used to be a registered Republican 12 years ago...but the party has drifted off into the ether since. It used to be the party of serious and reasonable thinkers, but the Karl Roves and the Rush Limbaughs and the Jim DeMints have pushed it over the cliff.

Actually, you might have a point with that King guy. But Rush and Krauthammer? Maybe I guess. Those guys are so far outside of how I am as a conservative that its hard for me to talk about them.

My post was about Republican concern for religious freedom. Clearly they only care about it when beneficial to them, and are totally against religions freedom when its not beneficial to them, which was the point of my original post on the matter. The quotes I posted back up the sheer hypocrisy.

Situation 1: The government should stop religious freedom.
Situation 2: The government should not stop religious freedom.

There isn't a political divide in this country...there's a reality divide. Some people live in it, and others are off in their own dream land. I used to be a registered Republican 12 years ago...but the party has drifted off into the ether since. It used to be the party of serious and reasonable thinkers, but the Karl Roves and the Rush Limbaughs and the Jim DeMints have pushed it over the cliff.

+100

The contribution to the havoc wreaked on our urban schools and cities born of the incest between the democratic party and public employee unions drives me crazy, but I don't even recognize the party of Jack Kemp, George Schultz, Ronald Reagan, or even Rick Snyder in the national GOP anymore.

"Well that's it - you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear" - Rock Man
2015 AAT: Javier Betancourt

My bat**** crazy religion says that HIV is a plague unleashed by God on teh gays and junkies, so I'd be perfectly within my religious rights to deny my employees coverage for drugs. HIV, like birth control, is elective-- you don't get it unless you're shooting up illegal drugs or having sex in some unholy manner, so I wouldn't need to cover it. Now that I think of it, my bat**** crazy religion also frowns upon gluttony and sloth, so no coverage for Type II Diabetes. Screw you, Wilfred Brimley. And to all you women who need oral contraceptives for issues not related to unapproved sexytime, tough luck. My religion dictates that I'm a sexist moron.

Okay sure, I guess there were some people who tried to do that. I don't remember hearing of them. But anyways, I disagree with that approach, just as I disagree that most conservatives wanted to block the mosque using governmental resources, as chas implied.

Exactly what did I say to imply that most conservatives wanted to block the mosque using governmental resources?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Catholics' views of President Obama were little changed during a week in which the administration battled publicly with Catholic leaders over whether church-affiliated employers should have to pay for contraception as part of their employees' health plans. An average of 46% of Catholics approved of the job Obama was doing as president last week, compared with 49% the prior week, a change within the margin of sampling error.

Although Catholic Church leaders' opposition to the requirement dates back to last fall, when the policy was being laid out, the controversy erupted and made headlines in the last 10 days, after the Obama administration announced that religious-based employers would ultimately have to comply. The Obama administration's rules would have forced organizations affiliated with the church -- such as Catholic hospitals, service organizations, and universities -- to pay for employee healthcare services that go against their belief that Catholics should not use contraception.

It is possible that practicing Catholics are more likely than nonpracticing Catholics to hew to the church's teachings on birth control. But both groups -- those who attend church every week or nearly every week and those who attend less often -- had identical 46% approval ratings of Obama last week. Though both more frequent and less frequent churchgoing Catholics' approval ratings of Obama were down from the prior week, neither change was statistically meaningful.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Catholics' views of President Obama were little changed during a week in which the administration battled publicly with Catholic leaders over whether church-affiliated employers should have to pay for contraception as part of their employees' health plans. An average of 46% of Catholics approved of the job Obama was doing as president last week, compared with 49% the prior week, a change within the margin of sampling error.

Although Catholic Church leaders' opposition to the requirement dates back to last fall, when the policy was being laid out, the controversy erupted and made headlines in the last 10 days, after the Obama administration announced that religious-based employers would ultimately have to comply. The Obama administration's rules would have forced organizations affiliated with the church -- such as Catholic hospitals, service organizations, and universities -- to pay for employee healthcare services that go against their belief that Catholics should not use contraception.

It is possible that practicing Catholics are more likely than nonpracticing Catholics to hew to the church's teachings on birth control. But both groups -- those who attend church every week or nearly every week and those who attend less often -- had identical 46% approval ratings of Obama last week. Though both more frequent and less frequent churchgoing Catholics' approval ratings of Obama were down from the prior week, neither change was statistically meaningful.